PC: System Requirements - Modern Warfare 2 Forum: Free Call of Duty MW2 Community

**abc** · 11-05-2010, 05:53 PM

OFFICIAL Call of Duty: Black Ops PC Minimum System Requirements:

OS: Windows® Vista / XP / 7
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo E6600 / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 or better
HDD Space: 12 GB free hard drive space
RAM/Memory: 2GB RAM
Video Card: Shader Model 3.0 or better. 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600GT / ATI Radeon® X1950Pro or better

source

**abc** · 11-05-2010, 06:06 PM

So, those are the official specs. Here is a rough UNOFFICIAL translation for laptops/hardware of different ages.

Processor: Intel® Core™2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz, 4Mb cache, 2006 "conroe" core) / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 (2.4GHz, 3.5Mb cache, 2007 phenom core) = roughly (laptops) Core 2 Duo P8700 (2.53GHz, 3Mb cache, 2007~) / in practice an Athlon x2 6000+ or Athlon x2 7750 or Athlon II x2 255 or Intel Pentium Dual Core E5300 will also match/exceed the CPUs treyarch quoted in a multicore game.
Video Card Features: It MUST have SHADER MODEL 3.0 and DIRECT X 9.0c to work. It doesn't matter if it's the fastest GFX card in the world, if it doesn't have SM 3.0 or DX 9.0c it will not work. This means GeForce 7 or X1000 or newer. e.g. GeForce 8, 9, 200, 400, ATI HD2000, HD3000, HD4000, HD5000 & HD6000
Video Card Performance: That was ONLY features and NOT "which is fast enough" which is what you need to look at for playing on high settings or playing with minimal lag. Treyarch quote an 8600GT or X1950 pro as being fast enough. Cards that are equally as fast in tests are the GeForce 7900/7950, Geforce 9500GT, GeForce GT 220 etc (note the G210 does not count, it gets utterly destroyed by the minimum requirement, an 8600GT) and on the AMD/ATI side: any X1900/X1950 pro/xt/xtx, HD2600pro/xt, HD3850, HD4650.

EDIT: Right, so I totally forgot about the GFX cards for laptops. Basically the laptop needs to cost around £1000 in 2007 or later and specifically be a gaming laptop until the GFX card is the same/faster than a desktop's 8600GT.

REALLY important point if you haven't already grasped it: it is those cards from each RANGE or above that are equal/faster than what what treyarch recommend. E.G. if you are talking about GeForce 8 series cards, only those with a high number than GeForce 8600 will be faster. This DOES NOT for the love of god include GeForce 9400, because then we'd be talking about the 9 series and not the 8 series. You would then need to look at the GeForce 9 series bit and see that for the 9 series you need a 9500 or above.

Interestingly the OFFICIAL requirements haven't changed since they were first announced as unconfirmed in the PC FAQ thread which, as it happens, is definitely worth a read. It confirms stuff like admin powers, /record, dev console, mods, dedi servers, kick & ban powers, steam exclusive & VAC protected (Boooo!!!)

~~the living in odd places like south america, russia, asia etc point has been sufficiently rebutted, for australia at least.~~

Imunality · 11-05-2010, 06:27 PM

Send them a mail regarding the dedicated server location issue and I'm pretty sure that they'll think about something if they acctually read it. Since Treyarch "listenes" to the community make a poll or something and a neat graph to go

**abc** · 11-05-2010, 07:12 PM

It would be such a school-boy error (forgetting about 90% of the world geographically - even if it's far less economically) you'd have to assume they've thought of this and had gameservers add additional servers in the above locations but simply not bothered to update their website yet, or that treyarch would license other providers in niche markets to ensure GameServers get to keep their monopoly in the developed world.

Serval · 11-05-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc

It would be such a school-boy error (forgetting about 90% of the world geographically - even if it's far less economically) you'd have to assume they've thought of this and had gameservers add additional servers in the above locations but simply not bothered to update their website yet, or that treyarch would license other providers in niche markets to ensure GameServers get to keep their monopoly in the developed world.

I know for a fact (and mentioned it somewhere around here) that Internode in Aus have a deal with them so they can host servers.

SgtJoo · 11-05-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serval

I know for a fact (and mentioned it somewhere around here) that Internode in Aus have a deal with them so they can host servers.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/09/int...k-ops-servers/

**GhostHands** · 11-06-2010, 01:05 AM

So I reckon my E2200 is gonna take a shit with this game. FML

SgtJoo · 11-06-2010, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHands

So I reckon my E2200 is gonna take a shit with this game. FML

I would

Fandom Ruck · 11-06-2010, 03:54 AM

My laptop can run Modern Warfare 2 maxed out but according to this it'll shit itself with Black Ops on minimum settings.

I don't get it.

**abc** · 11-06-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHands

So I reckon my E2200 is gonna take a shit with this game. FML

Your CPU really isn't your biggest concern. The system requirements specifically say "blah blah or BETTER" not "blah blah or one-with-a-higher-number."

Here is the BO minimum vs You vs the COD4 minimum. As you can see, you're between 2 and 8 times slower than the minimum for BO and actually slower than the requirements for COD4 in some cases.

On the flip side, dev console has been confirmed so, depending on how strict they are, there may be a lot of console tweaks you can do. I'm sure there'll be another "yitch" config if it's worthwhile.

The same "faster" = "better" so long as it supports enough technology to run the game applies to CPUs I guess. You're far less behind on the CPU front btw, only sort of 30% across the board as opposed to 200% - 800%

It would be so useful right now if I could remember whether COD is CPU or GPU limited (on my system, relative to far cry 2 - thinking about it I'd deduce that it is CPU limited.) See, this is what consolisation does, makes you loose once useful and intellectual knowledge through lack of application - this actually annoys me.

Having said CPU limited I still think you're E2200 will do alright, the GPU is definitely a far bigger issue. I'm pretty confident that, with a bit of dev console, you'll be able to get around the (unjustified?) higher "min" spec.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fandom Ruck

My laptop can run Modern Warfare 2 maxed out but according to this it'll shit itself with Black Ops on minimum settings.

I don't get it.

What a curious comment. We've also known laptops are awful but, for COD at least, this is a new level. An 8600GT may be mid/low end desktop but it's roughly equivilant to a 7900m/7950m/8800m - these are all laptop GPUs found in laptops costing £1000~. Also with regards to the CPU (the "Core 2" core @ 2.4GHz, 4Mb cache - again mid range on a desktop) I just had a quick look and the cheapest I found the equivilant spec CPU in a laptop was £1049.99!

I thought the general consensus on the COD engine was that it had pretty much reached it's technical limits (still using DX9 4 years after it had been replaced etc) hence why the requirements didn't change that much between each game. Maybe (hopefully) I am wrong and these requirements reflect a big step up, visually.

Olaf Vikingsson · 11-06-2010, 09:27 AM

Maybe they're just using different standards to define "minimum" this time. I've seen that happen between sequels, the Dawn of War expansions being a prime example.

SgtJoo · 11-06-2010, 11:15 AM

Hey abc, you reckon my old quad core Q6600 with a low profile ati 5570 can run it?

oneinchwunda · 11-06-2010, 12:32 PM

^ The CPU will blow it's face off, but I would expect your GPU to struggle, especially at higher resolutions.

SgtJoo · 11-06-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneinchwunda

^ The CPU will blow it's face off, but I would expect your GPU to struggle, especially at higher resolutions.

It's a fairly large monitor, 1680x1050 or somesuch.

**abc** · 11-06-2010, 12:40 PM

Use some logic boy!

Min CPU: Intel's 2006 - 2007 tech. It's 2.4GHz. 1066Mhz FSB. Dual (2) core. 4Mb cache.
Your CPU: Intel's 2006 - 2007 tech. It's 2.4GHz. 1066MHz FSB. Quad (i.e. twice, 2x etc the above) core. 8Mb cache.

Also, note the model numbers... E6600 and Q6600... this is all looking a bit curious. It would thus appear that you have a sort of quad core "version" of the min CPU.

I don't want to jump the gun or w/e, but a general rule of thumb for scaling cores in a modern-ish multicore game (infact this data IS from a Q6600 on the crysis engine) is:

1 core - 100%
2 cores - 100% + 75%
3 cores - 100% + 75% + 50%
4 cores - see where this is going... 250%

I suppose you could therefore approximate that the dual core would have a base performance of 175% and the quad 250% giving it a decent margin over the min spec. Typing "HD5570 review" in google and clicking the 2nd result (only because the first doesn't show a Call of Duty benchmark) reveals that it's not one of the fastest cards ever made and probably won't even trouble the upper limit of your CPU.

SgtJoo · 11-06-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc

Use some logic boy!

Min CPU: Intel's 2006 - 2007 tech. It's 2.4GHz. 1066Mhz FSB. Dual (2) core. 4Mb cache.
Your CPU: Intel's 2006 - 2007 tech. It's 2.4GHz. 1066MHz FSB. Quad (i.e. twice, 2x etc the above) core. 8Mb cache.

Also, note the model numbers... E6600 and Q6600... this is all looking a bit curious. It would thus appear that you have a sort of quad core "version" of the min CPU.

I don't want to jump the gun or w/e, but a general rule of thumb for scaling cores in a modern-ish multicore game (infact this data IS from a Q6600 on the crysis engine) is:

1 core - 100%
2 cores - 100% + 75%
3 cores - 100% + 75% + 50%
4 cores - see where this is going... 250%

I suppose you could therefore approximate that the dual core would have a base performance of 175% and the quad 250% giving it a decent margin over the min spec. Typing "HD5570 review" in google and clicking the 2nd result (only because the first doesn't show a Call of Duty benchmark) reveals that it's not one of the fastest cards ever made and probably won't even trouble the upper limit of your CPU.

Thanks

I'm getting an Antec 300 case so I'll finally be able to upgrade my crappy "Slim" Dell PC.

The problem is I was limited to a "low profile" card when I wanted to upgrade its integrated GFX. My PSU actually melted in on itself (China ftw) so I was forced to get a new one. I got a Thermaltake 430w because I was on a budget, but with that and a new case I figure I'll be able to upgrade my GPU pretty soon. I'll be transferring all of my components into my new case when it comes (Monday at the latest) and should have it all ready for Black Ops and the midnight release.

Do you know any "budget" cards that will perform well in Black Ops-esque situations?

**abc** · 11-06-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtJoo

I'll be transferring all of my components into my new case when it comes (Monday at the latest) and should have it all ready for Black Ops and the midnight release.

Hahahaha. That's funny. Embarking on a significant project the day before you REEEAAALLLLYYYY want to have a working computer.

The 5570 seemed to perform, in MW2, to roughly 66% the standard of a 8800GT. If you've already got it then really that's not bad performance whether we're talking stop-gap card or a cheap permanent card.

Good budget card depends on defining budget (edit: and you'll notice my idea of a budget GFX card is £100...)

£125 - GTX 460 786Mb MB (wtf have I been doing talking about the internet by writing megabit instead of megabyte all day...) will blow any game away that's on the market.
£76 - HD5750. This is a probably a very good shout for the money. If you get all mathematical and work out the cost in pence per FPS you'll find that the 5770 @ £105 is exactly the same and is therefore an equally valid suggestion, however if you're spending £105 you really may as well upgrade from "great" to "world conquering" and get the GTX 460.

P.S. Good choice on the 300, always a very safe bet. Always been very pleased with mine, I'm sure Dante can say the same for his.

Olaf Vikingsson · 11-06-2010, 01:27 PM

tbf, 66% of the 8800GT really isn't adequate for a permanent card if you play anywhere near as much as anyone here does.

SgtJoo · 11-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc

Hahahaha. That's funny. Embarking on a significant project the day before you REEEAAALLLLYYYY want to have a working computer.

The 5570 seemed to perform, in MW2, to roughly 66% the standard of a 8800GT. If you've already got it then really that's not bad performance whether we're talking stop-gap card or a cheap permanent card.

Good budget card depends on defining budget (edit: and you'll notice my idea of a budget GFX card is £100...)

£125 - GTX 460 786Mb MB (wtf have I been doing talking about the internet by writing megabit instead of megabyte all day...) will blow any game away that's on the market.
£76 - HD5750. This is a probably a very good shout for the money. If you get all mathematical and work out the cost in pence per FPS you'll find that the 5770 @ £105 is exactly the same and is therefore an equally valid suggestion, however if you're spending £105 you really may as well upgrade from "great" to "world conquering" and get the GTX 460.

P.S. Good choice on the 300, always a very safe bet. Always been very pleased with mine, I'm sure Dante can say the same for his.

Blame UPS for it. It shipped from the North down to me in two days and was in the city 2 hours away from me yesterday. They just don't deliver on weekends

Your idea of budget is about on par with what I was thinking, thanks for the info. The card I have is going to be there for a wee bit depending on how long it takes me to acquire some more funding, we'll see.

Fandom Ruck · 11-06-2010, 01:33 PM

The Radeon 6850 is the same price as the GTX 460 & gets slightly better performance.

**GhostHands** · 11-06-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abc

Having said CPU limited I still think you're E2200 will do alright, the GPU is definitely a far bigger issue. I'm pretty confident that, with a bit of dev console, you'll be able to get around the (unjustified?) higher "min" spec.

I upgraded to a 9600GT so I'm not worried about the GPU. I was just concerned about the CPU since it's rather old. I bought the game so I want to make sure I can play the damn thing.